alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-18-00104-CV

Salina S. Wyrick

v.

Hal T. Jayson, M.D., Radiology 

Associates of North Texas, P.A., 

Joey Mayor, M.D. and EmCare DFW 

Emergency Physicians, PLLC.

§

§

§

§

From the 153rd District Court

of Tarrant County (153-292369-17)

July 12, 2018

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the attempted appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the attempted 

appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

It is further ordered that all parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal, 

for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
§ 538.5 Minimum driving range. ( a ) The minimum driving range that a passenger automobile must have in order to be treated as a dual fueled automobile pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32901(c) is 200 miles when operating on its nominal useable fuel tank capacity of the alternative fuel, except when the alternative fuel is electricity or compressed natural gas. Beginning model year 2016, a natural gas passenger automobile must have a minimum driving range of 150 miles when operating on its nominal useable fuel tank capacity of the alternative fuel to be treated as a dual fueled automobile, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32901(c)(2).
( b ) The minimum driving range that a passenger automobile using electricity as an alternative fuel must have in order to be treated as a dual fueled automobile pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32901(c) is 7.5 miles on its nominal storage capacity of electricity when operated on the EPA urban test cycle and 10.2 miles on its nominal storage capacity of electricity when operated on the EPA highway test cycle.
[81 FR 74274, Oct. 25, 2016]
###### Editorial Note on Part 571

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 571 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 571.227 xxx

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 86 FR 74302, Dec. 29, 2021.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 88 FR 77532, Nov. 13, 2023.
IV

House Calendar No. 87

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 270

[Report No. 107–252]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3090) to provide tax incentives

for economic recovery.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 23, 2001

Mr. LINDER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3090) to provide

tax incentives for economic recovery.

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of

3 order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3090) to

4 provide tax incentives for economic recovery. The bill shall

5 be considered as read for amendment. The amendment

6 recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now

7 printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. All

8 points of order against the bill, as amended, are waived.
2

HRES 270 RH

1 The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

2 the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment

3 thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

4 (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally

5 divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking mem6 ber of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the further

7 amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the

8 report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this reso9 lution, if offered by Representative Rangel of New York

10 or his designee, which shall be in order without interven11 tion of any point of order, shall be considered as read,

12 and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally di13 vided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent;

14 and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instruc15 tions.

House Calendar No. 87

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 270

[Report No. 107–252]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3090)

to provide tax incentives for economic recovery.

OCTOBER 23, 2001

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TOMMY BENNY SUDIARTATE,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 72585

Agency No. A096

- 499

- 646

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 12, 2021 * *

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Tommy Benny Sudiartate , a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a m otion to reopen. Mohammed v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 14 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 72585

Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sudiartate’s motion to

reopen as untimely

, where the motion was filed more than seven years after the

final order of removal, and where Sudiartate failed to demonstrate a material

change in country conditions in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to

the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),

(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 990

- 91 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA did not

abuse its discretion in denying motion to reopen where petitioner failed to submit

material evidence of qualitatively different country conditions).

Sudiartate ’s motion to take judicial notice is denied

. See Fisher v. INS , 79

F.3d 955, 963

- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to the

administrative record).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

.
1210-AB32-2-1115.html[7/24/2015 6:05:55 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvq-6gfs

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1609

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Evan Berg

General Comment

I am smart enough to plan for my own retirement.
Editorial Note on Part 384
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 384 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 384.231 Satisfaction of State disqualification requirement. ( a ) *Applicability.* The provisions of §§ 384.203, 384.206(b), 384.210, 384.213, 384.215 through 384.219, 384.221 through 384.224, and 384.231 of this part apply to the State of licensure of the person affected by the provision. The provisions of § 384.210 of this part also apply to any State to which a person makes application for a transfer CDL.
( b ) *Required action* — ( 1 ) *CLP or CDL holders.* A State must satisfy the requirement of this subpart that the State disqualify a person who holds a CLP or a CDL by, at a minimum, disqualifying the person's CLP or CDL for the applicable period of disqualification.
( 2 ) *A person required to have a CLP or CDL.* A State must satisfy the requirement of this subpart that the State disqualify a person required to have a CLP or CDL who is convicted of an offense or offenses necessitating disqualification under § 383.51 of this subchapter. At a minimum, the State must implement the limitation on licensing provisions of § 384.210 and the timing and recordkeeping requirements of paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section so as to prevent such a person from legally obtaining a CLP or CDL from any State during the applicable disqualification period(s) specified in this subpart.
( c ) *Required timing.* The State must disqualify a driver as expeditiously as possible.
( d ) *Recordkeeping requirements.* The State must conform to the requirements of the CDLIS State Procedures Manual (incorporated by reference in § 384.107(b).) These requirements include the maintenance of such driver records and driver identification data on the CDLIS as the FMCSA finds are necessary to the implementation and enforcement of the disqualifications called for in §§ 384.215 through 384.219, and 384.221 through 384.224 of this part.
[67 FR 49762, July 31, 2002, as amended at 73 FR 73126, Dec. 1, 2008; 76 FR 26896, May 9, 2011]
1210-AB32-2-1570.html[7/26/2015 7:41:15 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 11, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jxf-xty8

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2067

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Patricia Higley

General Comment

What happened to the government of the people, by the people and for the people. It should never be the

 responsibility of the office of the president to try to run my life, tell me what to think and how to believe. Hands

 off my life and everything about it.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ SECURITIES AND EXCHA NGE COMMISSION , Plaintiff

- Appellee
,
v. ONYX CAPITAL ADVISOR S, LLC AND MICHAEL A. FARR , Defendant s,
AND ROY DIXON , JR., Defendant

- Appellant.

__________________________ 2013

- 1110

__________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in case no. 10

- CV

- 11633, Judge Denise Page Hood

.

__________________________ ON MO TION

__________________________ Before N EWMAN , L OURIE and R EYNA , Circuit Judges. P ER C URIAM

. Case: 13-1110 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 04/05/2013SEC V

. ONYX CAPITAL ADVISOR S 2

O R D E R The Securities and Exchange Commission moves for r econsideration of the court’s order transferring the appeal

. Upon consideration thereof, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : A

bsent an objection from the appellant within 14 days of the date of this order, the motion for reconsideration will be granted and the appeal will be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1631

.
F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

s 26 Case: 13-1110 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 04/05/2013
1210-AB32-2-1380.html[7/26/2015 2:46:01 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jw1-69ch

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1876

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Robert Wilson

General Comment

I would like to say that I have worked all my life to save for retirement. Any regulations that would prohibit

me from retiring when I choose to or regulates how I spend the money I have saved for retirement is downright

un-American and tramples on my freedom and anyone's freedom who has done the same.
#### John Baird, *Respondent, v.*The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York, *Appellant.*

— Judgment reversed, order of reference vacated, new trial ordered at circuit, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 32.1

     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Systems & Computer Technology
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Michael D. Chamberlain, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Michael D. Chamberlain
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2003
§ 555.8 Termination of temporary exemptions. ( a ) A temporary exemption from a standard granted on the basis of substantial economic hardship terminates according to its terms but not later than 3 years after the date of issuance unless terminated sooner pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
( b ) A temporary exemption from a standard granted on a basis other than substantial economic hardship terminates according to its terms but not later than 2 years after the date of issuance unless terminated sooner pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
( c ) Any interested person may petition for the termination or modification of an exemption granted under this part. The petition will be processed in accordance with the procedures of part 552 of this chapter.
( d ) The Administrator terminates or modifies a temporary exemption if he determines that— ( 1 ) The temporary exemption is no longer consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the Act; or
( 2 ) The temporary exemption was granted on the basis of false, fraudulent, or misleading representations or information.
( e ) If an application for renewal of a temporary exemption that meets the requirements of § 555.5 has been filed not later than 60 days before the termination date of an exemption, the exemption does not terminate until the Administrator grants or denies the application for renewal.
( f ) The Administrator publishes in the Federal Register a notice of: ( 1 ) An application for termination or modification of an exemption and the action taken in response to it; and
( 2 ) Any termination or modification of an exemption pursuant to the Administrator's own motion.
[38 FR 2694, Jan. 29, 1973, as amended at 39 FR 37989, Oct. 25, 1974; 40 FR 42015, Sept. 10, 1975; 64 FR 2861, Jan. 19, 1999]
Hillsborough,

June, 1900.

#### Fournier *v.*Columbian Manufacturing Co.

Case, by the plaintiff, whose right hand was injured by the gears of a spinning-frame in the defendants’ cotton mill. The plaintiff was a doffer in the defendants’ employ. It was her duty to clean or wipe the gears on the spinning-frames at the cleaning hour, which was from 8.30 to 4.30 o’clock on every Saturday afternoon. For this purpose the frames were stopped by throw*630ing a belt from a fixed to a movable pulley. It was the spinner’s, duty, at this hour, to tie together the ends of threads broken during the process of cleaning; also, to start the frames in order to-get the work in running order, first giving notice of her purpose to the doffer. While the plaintiff was cleaning the gears from which she received her injury, the spinner who ran the frame connected with the gears, and who was a competent and ordinarily careful employee, started the machinery without notice to th& plaintiff, thus causing her injuries to be inflicted.

The grounds upon which the plaintiff claimed negligence in the-defendants were: (1) Permitting the cleaning with the speed on without removing the belt or securing the shipper, (2) not providing brushes for cleaning the gears, and (3) the character of the instructions given to the plaintiff. At the conclusion of the testimony, the defendants’ motion that the court direct a verdict for them was denied, and they excepted.

*Joseph W. Fellows, David A. Taggart,*and *William Gr. Buteaur*for the plaintiff.

*Burnham, Brown Warren*and *John B. Biedell,*for the defendants.

Pike, J.

The cause of the plaintiff’s injury was the negligence of a fellow-servant, who was competent and ordinarily careful, in starting the frame without notice while the plaintiff was cleaning-the gears.

If the injury had resulted from the running of the belt from the movable to the fixed pulley and thus starting up the frame, or from the plaintiff having been required to clean the gears while they were in motion, the questions of law which the plaintiff discusses would be before the court. But it did not, and those questions are not here for consideration. The motion to direct a verdict for the defendants should have been granted.

*Verdict set aside : judgment for the defendants.*

Parsons, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 4267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-395]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; American Health Information Community Population CARE and 
Clinical Care Connections Workgroup Meeting

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 13th meeting of the American Health 
Information Community Population Care and Clinical Care Connections 
Workgroup [formerly Biosurveillance Workgroup] in accordance with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.)

DATES: February 2, 2007, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20201), Conference Room 4090 (please bring photo ID for entry to a 
Federal building)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: http:/www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/
biosurveillance/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup will discuss the priority 
areas of Adverse Events and Response Management.
    The meeting will be available via Internet access. For additional 
information, go to http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/biosurveillance/bio_instruct.html.

    Dated: January 22, 2007.
Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology.
[FR Doc. 07-395 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17958]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

41 CFR Parts 60-300 and 60-741

RIN 1250-AA14


Pre-Enforcement Notice and Conciliation Procedures; Correction

AGENCY: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract 
Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published a final rule in the Federal 
Register on August 4, 2023, modifying procedures and standards OFCCP 
uses when issuing pre-enforcement notices and securing compliance 
through conciliation. This document corrects amendatory instructions 
included in the final rule.

DATES: These corrections are effective September 5, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina Williams, Director, Division of 
Policy and Program Development, Office of Federal Contract Compliance 
Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room C-3325, Washington, DC 
20210. Telephone: (202) 693-0103 or toll free at 1-800-397-6251. If you 
are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-
1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Corrections

    OFCCP makes the following corrections to the final rule (FR Doc. 
2023-16098) published on August 4, 2023 (88 FR 51717):


Sec.  60-300.2   [Corrected]

0
1. On page 51735, column 3, in amendatory instruction 20 for Sec.  60-
300.2, the instruction ``Amend Sec.  60-300.2 by removing the 
definitions for `Qualitative evidence' and `Quantitative evidence' '' 
is corrected to read ``Remove and reserve Sec.  60-300.2(t) and (u).''


Sec.  60-300.85   [Corrected]

0
2. On page 51736, column 2, in amendatory instruction 24 for Sec.  60-
300.85, the instruction ``Add Sec.  60-300.85 to subpart D to read as 
follows:'' is corrected to read ``Add Sec.  60-300.85 to subpart E to 
read as follows:''.


Sec.  60-741.2   [Corrected]

0
3. On page 51736, column 2, in amendatory instruction 26 for Sec.  60-
741.2, the instruction ``Amend Sec.  60-741.2 by removing the 
definitions for `Qualitative evidence' and `Quantitative evidence' is 
corrected to read ``Remove and reserve Sec.  60-741.2(s) and (t).''

Michele Hodge,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023-17958 Filed 8-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-CM-P
Argued December 12, 1917,

affirmed January 22, 1918.

#### BLEYTHING *v.*BLEYTHING.

(170 Pac. 305.)

Divorce—Grounds—Mutual Quarreling.

1. Deeree for defendant wife in divorce suit will be affirmed; the evidence as to her conduct showing no more than the childish bickerings of two young people, avoidable by mutual forbearance and self-control.

[As to degree of proof required to establish cause for divorce, see note In Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1240.]

Prom Clackamas: James U. Campbell, Judge.

Department 1.

Statement by Mr. Chief Justice McBride.

This is a suit by Wallace M. Bleything against Maude E. Bleything for divorce. There was a trial, findings and decree for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Por appellant there was a brief over the names of *Miss Lida M. O’Bryon*and *Mr. George C. Brownell,*with an oral argument by *Miss O’Bryon.*

Por respondent there was a brief and an oral argument by *Mr. Henry M. Esterly.*

*198Opinion by

Me. *Chief*Justice McBride.

1. There are no new questions of law raised upon this appeal, and to discuss the evidence would only be. to recount the childish bickerings of two young people who, by the exercise of mutual forbearance and self, control, could have lived pleasantly together. The evidence does not convince us that defendant’s conduct has been such as to entitle plaintiff to a decree, therefore the decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Aeeirmed.

Mr. Justice Burnett, Mr. Justice Benson and Mr. Justice Harris concur.